I’ve been a longtime fan of the James Bond series and recently rewatched a few classics, which got me thinking—how much have certain Bond films actually shaped the direction of the franchise over the years?
For instance, Casino Royale (2006) brought in a raw, emotional depth we hadn’t really seen before, almost rebooting Bond for a new era. Meanwhile, Goldfinger (1964) introduced many of the tropes we still associate with the character today—iconic villains, cool gadgets, and that unforgettable Bond swagger.Before and After the Re-Watch: The Bond Filmstableau tutorial
I’m really curious to hear your take—
Which James Bond movie do you think had the biggest impact on the overall series?
Did it change the storytelling style, Bond’s character, or even the audience’s expectations?
Also, fun side note: I’m working on a small tableau tutorial for visualizing Bond film data—box office numbers, ratings, etc.—and would love suggestions if there’s something you’d like to see charted!
You Only Live Twice is the most significant entry for the longevity of the series, and Roald Dahl as its screenwriter is one of the most influential creative talents within the series
My vote would be for OHMSS as it proved someone else could step into the shoes of Connery and believably sustain the series beyond a single actor. It changed the game forever.
I’m going to go with TB. While GF is the film that launched Bondmania and specifically morphed it from a series to a franchise (in the modern sense), it’s TB that intentionally doubled down on that new identity. Everything about TB was designed to, and outdo, the blueprint of the prior film. Gadgets, theme tune, even SC’s interpretation of the character was GF, turned all the way up. And that it was the 4th also set a template for each era of EON moving forward.
For me it’s GOLDFINGER (the gadgets, the car, the big caper, the song).
Imagine that third film had not established that so successfully, the next film (if there had been one) would not have had a bigger budget and would not have become that commercial juggernaut.
All are good and very valid suggestions. Personally, I’d lean toward Goldfinger, but just to be different, I’ll go with the original film, Dr. No. For a first film that had no idea it was going to be such a juggernaut series, it got a LOT right from the very beginning–007 himself, the Bond style, the main villain, the Bond girl, all the casting, the humor, the screenwriting, the touch of the bizarre, the cinematography, the production design, the iconic gun barrel, and of course the James Bond Theme. There were only a handful of things that needed to be tweaked to get the series to where we all know it went, but 80% or so of it is right there in Dr. No from the very beginning.
DN–started it.
GF–perfected a potent template
YOLT–made extravagance de rigeur
DAF–revived it, and allowed the meta- to enter
TSWLM–showed it could be relevant again
MR–showed it could tap into/borrow from the zeitgeist effectively
GE–showed it could thrive after a difficult (re)birth
CR–showed new templates were possible
SF–showed how far it could go
I’ll go with @Jim on this.
Connery, malignant and marginally on strike, doesn’t affect the film - so it showed they could change actors.
Enhances the template which has been used for every film since.
Good woman
Bad woman
Victim
MI6 team used for comedic effect
Bond actor - commenting on what’s happening ( they’ve read the script)
Structure like a pantomime
It’s been directly remade twice by the same director !
It’s Goldfinger, no doubt about it, that’s a fact. It’s also called the first real blockbuster here and there, that it became even bigger with TB and YOLT is true, but that doesn’t take away from the fact that GF became the prototype for the rest of the series.
GOLDFINGER would probably be the most commonly recognised* film - but if we ask for elements that represent the spirit of the series? I suspect after ‘shaken, not stirred’ and ‘licensed to kill’ another frequently mentioned answer might be ‘hollowed out volcano’. And this is perhaps an even more important totem of the series as a whole, its significant bend towards the fantastic in an sf/science fact!-kind of way.
Fleming touched that element first with Solitaire’s unexplained - mild but instrumental to Mr Big’s scheme - extrasensory gifts. And after that in a more pronounced leaning into the ICBM/ballistic rocket theme of Drax’ Moonraker; a book that might just as well sit beside Day of the Triffids or The Body Snatchers in the sf section of a 1955 bookstore.
It’s this particular streak of the fantastical in the Bond adventures Dahl picked up on, expanded and made it the centre piece of an sf-adaptation of one of Fleming’s key books. The series would time and again return to this element when scope and size called for an entertainment even bigger and more fantastic than the last one. People may connect the Aston and the golden girl with Bond - but if we ask what Bond is about, then the secret base inside the volcano is the best answer overall**.
*meaning if we asked any random number of people globally, from the Mongolian steppes to the Andes, from Timbuktu to Llanfairpwllgwyngyll, the title most mentioned in the sample will likely be GOLDFINGER.
**even though that was nearly 60 years and 20 films ago and hasn’t been seriously attempted since DIE ANOTHER DAY (the ‘bases’ of Bloferhauser and Safin are neither impressive nor interesting; both just try to reproduce past glories).
Very true. The Bond of Dr. No is a cool customer but he still feels like a real person. He’s scared of the spider. He’s protective of Honey, putting his arm around her with “I’m scared too”. Even how he uses the glass to cool his head down while relaxing in the hotel room. The elements I like about Lazenby, Dalton and Craig all have their foundations here.
I would actually attach that notion to Live and Let Die. OHMSS is a classic now, but wasn’t received well at the time and Connery was back as Bond in 1971. Roger Moore was the one to truly prove that Bond could exist with Sean
I agree that there is a real case to be made for LALD. While I have regaled/bored everyone over the years with my recollection of seeing it back in 1973 as my “first” Bond on numerous occasions, what I can’t do (I’m not thaaat old) is have that experience through the eyes of someone who had SC as their first. But LALD’s box office and positive reviews are proof enough that audiences were now used to ‘change.’
For me the question will always be, what if there had been no Laz? What if the series had gone straight from SC to Sir Rog? Would the change have been accepted so readily. I do think that the YOLT-OHMSS-DAF 3 different leads (kind of) had set the grounds for the “20 guys have played Tarzan” position that the producers had always taken.
Lazenby played Bond just once but Connery came back just once too (I’m talking about the immediate present, NSNA was 10 years after LALD). That forced the issue and made the initial idea of replacing Connery permanent. They couldn’t run back to the past anymore. But it must be said the tone of DAF made the shift to Roger a lot easier.
I was just going to comment on that but you beat me to it sharpshooter. While Roger Moore’s skill, familiarity, and popularity helped him with the public when he took over as James Bond, it must be said that the lighter tone of Diamonds Are Forever helped smooth things over for his run as 007. I think Moore still would have been accepted in the role had DAF been tonally different–even a revenge tale–but his road was easier than it could have been because of DAF was less serious than its predecessors–and it was certainly easier than George Lazenby’s road even if the latter only did one film.
Wasn’t that typical for Bond films from the first film onwards?
Yes, FRWL was more serious then others, and OHMSS had that ending.
However, all the Bond films are intrinsically not realistic, have outrageous plot ideas and a main character who is basically a knight in shining armour.
I think the musical chair casting after YOLT was the deciding moment for the franchise. If you can have that and survive, the main actor is not the problem anymore.
Even if that was constructed as one in the last era.